All the SWAM instruments I’ve used thus far (the double-reed woodwinds, bass clarinet, cello, and double bass, all on iOS) seem to rely heavily on the Expression parameter. I’m trying to decide for myself whether I want to map this parameter to an external expression pedal, or to the Aftertouch data from MG3.
With all that freshly in mind, I started with completely cleared, reset instances of SWAM Bassoon and SWAM Cello, and just looked through some of the MIDI mapping presets that I could obviously identify as belonging to MPE controllers (e.g. “Seaboard Default”, “MPE Default”, “LinnStrument MPE Default”). I wanted to see if I could learn something from how those presets set things up. With the caveat that I am no sort of expert on MPE controllers in general, it sure seemed to me that the MPE presets I could identify as such, either mapped Expression to CC2 for breath control, or to Aftertouch.
And here is my question: for those who choose to map to CC2 for breath control, why that and not Aftertouch? Presumably MG3 sends Aftertouch or Pressure data with each note, MPE-style; can CC2 with breath control do that too? For that matter, can CC11 on an expression foot pedal, if I set the mapping up to listen on any MIDI channel?
Thus far, trying to map both to Aftertouch and to CC11 on the foot pedal, I can perhaps see some advantages in either, but I’d love to hear others’ opinions on it.
CC2 works best for non-MPE conroller presets. They also give me a feeling of tighter note handling most of the time, since the MPE instrument presets tend to trigger notes to a greater deal as a mix between Velocity and Expression. In other words, wind instruments are almost always better withh CC2 control whereas Strings are good or better with MPE presets where the velocitypart of the trigger gives you the first bow to strng transient and you can then focus on shaping the rest with the control from the Expression. (pressure/aftertouch) I have just recently come to apprechiate the LInnstruments prests as starting points for some reason.
Don’t forget to use the Modulator to shape the expression envelope. Especially if you want to use a controller (pedal or breathcontroller) together with an MPE preset. It is actually a world of of difference. Check this video at 48.20 (but you probably need the rest of it too, to make sense it I am afraid )
What’s funny is that I just finished watching that episode–again. (The first time I saw it, it was just overwhelming with all the new information. I’m going back to some of your basics now, and they are seriously helping with additional review–there’s just so much, for someone like me without a long-time MIDI background, that it takes a while to “seat” in the mind. I’m getting there, and I seriously appreciate your patience with those of us not so far along in the journey.
But…I think it is now really dawning on me, the importance of tapping into the “MPE-ness” of control by using the Modulators with control elements on the handles. A great roadmap for my next few sessions of T&E!
And thank you for the opinion about the use of CC2 on winds v. strings, too. Thus far I’ve been pretty happy with my (rudimentary, in hindsight) use of the Modulators to increase playing-touch-sensitivity of the Aftertouch data that I’ve been using for Expression in the SWAM winds, but that hasn’t seemed to translate quite as well to my ear, to the SWAM strings–and this is what’s principally behind my present desire to understand all this better.
In the case of the SWAM instrument preset MIDI mapping, my basic choice is either 1) to map my expression pedal (via CC11) directly to SWAM Expression, theoretically listening on all channels for polyphonic response; or 2) to map to Aftertouch, and connect my expression pedal instead to MG3 Modulator handles. If I’m understanding things properly (or at least better, now), I’m thinking I might try to connect the pedal to the Strike “max” handle, to allow for an amplified Strike as the pedal reaches higher values, but enveloped within the rest of the Aftertouch data. (Theoretically this would mean that both playing touch and the pedal would have effects on the control, correct?)
And of course that may lead to other things as well, but I’d like to get this one down first.
Personally I very rarely real-time-control the strike dimension. Strike is a momentary velocity value sent with the note-on message, and it is already influenced by your pick or pluck force. There is very little to gain (as I see things) from using a pedal to override this pick velocity information.
I always focus on controlling those aspects of the sound that takes place “over time”, so my asssigned controller actually contribute to the ongoing shaping of the sound. But there is no right or wrong here of course. I have come to my conclusions from experimenting, and I expect nothing less from anyone else. That is part of the journey to understanding.
About the MIN and MAX handles I usually connect to the MIN handle only, because it gives me more control of the MPE dimension polyphony. Test this by setting up a modulator with two Pressure envelopes and just connect yout pedal to MIN on one and Max on the other for a comparison.
It is a pretty remakable difference.
But I also want to point to the rather obvious fact that SWAM instrument are monophonic (or duophonic at best - the strings) and any control over pressure or any other MPE dimension here is just a chimera. Since there is no polyphony you can just as well connect directly to the expression via tthe four CC boxes or the PRESS or CC74 buttons. The detour over the modulator is for true polyphonic MPE instruments.
As always I appreciate the perspective, good Sir. You make a great point about the SWAM instruments being either mono- or duophonic; here I go trying to understand and maintain fidelity to a nascently-grokked principle, and instead you suggest “just using a pencil”, as the partially-apocryphal story goes. That one made me smile.
I fully admit that my own goal with adjusting Strike is specific–I understand that once the note is struck, moving Strike around is pointless, for the duration of that note. But! I figured out at one point that the range of Strike values that I could produce by my playing technique alone, wasn’t as big as I’d like–I’d like to be able to produce, so to speak, 0-127 simply by changing my touch. It turned out that if I amplified the possible range of Strike by elevating the Strike Modulator’s “max” handle to, well, the maximum, then suddenly I could make very nearly the whole range, without having to twiddle with knobs on the guitar. I could hear my playing respond to this, in real time, and it’s been fun. (I’ve never been used to having this much touch sensitivity available in a virtual instrument…)
Now that you have me considering hooking up a footpedal to a handle on a Modulator, too, it occurs to me that I might be able to temporarily “expand” the Strike range, as above, and still have that same pedal available for use with adjusting Pressure on the note after the attack, with Strike having completed its purpose and safely out of the way. (I’m not going to make any claims about that being sound reasoning, but does that make sense?)
And I’ll definitely T&E the “min” vs “max” handles idea, to see which one better gives me the result I’m looking for. I appreciate that.
i don’t use the swam instruments, but with others there is a sweet spot where the full range of expression is optimized for the combination of input instrument and vst patch.
when i first demo’d mg2, it was the rhodes output which sold me, i could easily go from gentle to growl.
some instruments have a velocity curve option, often this is the best place to start.
in mg3, it may not be the strike as much as finding the best settings for gain, gate and compression.
)
